Limitations and opportunities of smallholders’ practical knowledge when dealing with pig health issues in northern Uganda

Pig production has a short history in Uganda. The majority of pigs are kept by smallholder farmers in rural areas where access to veterinary services is limited, and pig keeping has been suggested as a potential pathway out of poverty for smallholders. Previous research has identified the disease of African swine fever (ASF) as a major threat, causing high mortalities in pigs. With no available cure or vaccine, the only option is to implement biosecurity measures, i.e. strategies that prevent the spread of ASF. This paper draws on data from four months of ethnographic fieldwork in rural northern Uganda. Combining methods of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and a survey, the aim was to improve understanding of smallholders’ perceptions and responses to pig health issues such as ASF. Applying the concept of practical knowledge, this paper analyses the potential and limitations of smallholders’ practice-based knowledge as a means of dealing with pig health issues. The results show that while pigs were appreciated locally for providing an income, many informants found it difficult to deal with pig diseases effectively. Consequently, informants commonly expressed a need for other kinds of knowledge in their pig production, indicating that veterinary advice can play an important role in reducing the negative impact of pig health issues. For animal health provision to have relevance in this context, however, veterinary practitioners must pay close attention to smallholders’ priorities and ways of knowing in their livestock keeping. Results further show that pig health issues made some informants abandon pig production altogether. To enhance the potential of pig production as a poverty mitigation strategy in Uganda, research and policy need to focus on ways of bettering general conditions for smallholder pig keeping, including improving the quality of and access to veterinary services in rural areas.

participation, all the smallholders were provided information about the overarching aim and expected outcome of the study. They were also told that they could decline to take part of the study at any time and for any reason. Oral informed consent was given by all smallholders prior to participation. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the smallholders' names have been changed and the names of the study villages have been excluded.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Pig production has a short history in Uganda. The majority of pigs are kept by smallholder 20 farmers in rural areas where access to veterinary services is limited, and pig keeping has been 21 suggested as a potential pathway out of poverty for smallholders. Previous research has 22 identified the disease of African swine fever (ASF) as a major threat, causing high mortalities 23 among pigs. With no available cure or vaccine, the only option is to implement biosecurity 24 measures, i.e. strategies that prevent the spread of ASF. This paper draws on data from four 25 months of ethnographic fieldwork in rural northern Uganda. Combining methods of 26 participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and a survey, the 27 aim was to improve understanding of smallholders' perceptions and responses to pig health 28 issues such as ASF. Applying the concept of practical knowledge, this paper analyses the 29 potential and limitations of smallholders' practice-based knowledge as a means of dealing 30 with pig health issues. The results show that while pigs were appreciated locally for providing 31 an income, many informants found it difficult to deal with pig diseases effectively. 32 Consequently, informants commonly expressed a need for other kinds of knowledge in their 33 pig production, indicating that veterinary advice can play an important role in reducing the 34 negative impact of pig health issues. For animal health provision to have relevance in this 35 context, however, veterinary practitioners must pay close attention to smallholders' priorities 36 and ways of knowing in their livestock keeping. Results further show that pig health issues 37 made some informants abandon pig production altogether. To enhance the potential of pig 38 production as a poverty mitigation strategy in Uganda, research and policy need to focus on 39 ways of bettering general conditions for smallholder pig keeping, including improving the 40 Introduction 43 This paper reflects a growing interest in research into the social and cultural aspects of animal 44 diseases 1. Drawing on data from ethnographic fieldwork in northern Uganda, this study 45 explored smallholder farmers' perceptions and responses to pig diseases in general, and the 46 disease of African swine fever (ASF) in particular. 47 48 ASF is a viral disease that affects pigs and can lead to severe clinical disease and death 2. It 49 is endemic in Uganda and has a significant negative impact on the country's pig production 50 and farmers' financial situation 3. Infected pigs typically develop clinical signs such as a 51 loss of appetite, high fever and haemorrhages leading to skin colour changes 4. In most 52 cases, the infected pigs die within a few days. Despite ASF being discovered in 1921 5, 53 there is still no vaccine or cure for it. Instead, its spread can only be prevented by basic 54 biosecurity measures, such as avoiding direct and indirect contact between naïve pigs and 55 infectious pigs and materials. Previous research indicates that it is particularly difficult to 56 implement biosecurity measures successfully in the smallholder context, and points to 57 smallholders' limited financial means as well as lack of access to veterinary support as key 58 challenges 6. Overall, previous veterinary and social science research in Uganda has 59 identified a need for more locally adapted biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of ASF 60 and reduce its negative impacts in poverty-constrained smallholder contexts 7, 8. 61 62 This study was conducted in northern Uganda, a part of the country still recovering from an 63 extended period of armed conflict that took place between 1986 and 2006 9, 10. During the 64 conflict, the majority of people in the north were forced to stay in so-called internally 65 displaced persons (IDP) camps, in which access to agricultural land was highly restricted 66 10. Many also lost their livestock during this time and were consequently left poorer 9, 10. 67 When the armed conflict ceased and it was safe to return to their former home villages, 68 smallholders were slowly able to resume cultivation and livestock keeping 9. In this context, 69 and with the aim of reducing poverty and rebuilding rural economies that had been severely 70 affected by the long-term conflict, among other initiatives the government and donors have 71 promoted pig production 11. There has been growing recognition of the benefits of pig 72 production and it is now a fairly common livelihood activity in the study area. This is also 73 Earlier preoccupations with defining and emphasising binaries between scientific knowledge 90 and farmers' local knowledge have declined, and the longstanding term of "traditional" 91 knowledge has increasingly been abandoned due to problematic connotations of 92 "backwardness" in relation to so-called "modern Western science" 20, 21. A key focus of 93 more recent publications about smallholders' understanding of livestock health has been on 94 concepts of "hybridity" and "pluralism". They reveal how smallholders' knowledge is 95 essentially adaptive and experimental, and draws from multiple sources, including practical 96 knowledge from within the community and biomedical knowledge from external veterinary 97 advisors 22-24. 98 99 Common to past and present conceptualisations of smallholder farmers' knowledge is the 100 acknowledgement that smallholders have in-depth knowledge of their local environments. This 101 plays a critical role in providing the most appropriate local solutions when dealing with 102 problems in farming 20, 25, 26, including ways to deal with animal disease in the local context 103 see, for example, 22, 24, 27, 28. Many authors who have written about smallholders' 104 agricultural knowledge emphasise that it is adapted to the local context and complexity 20, 25, 105 26, is largely tacit, and is often passed on through demonstration, observation and practice 24, 106 25, 29, 30. This practical knowledge can further be understood as evolving through a process 107 of constant interpretation and evaluation, where fine-tuning of methods and the search for better 108 solutions often develop during ongoing discussions and knowledge-sharing with other 109 community members 25. This kind of local knowledge could also be described in terms of 110 "craftmanship", closely related to skills, in which elements such as commitment and passion 111 are suggested to influence the ability of smallholders to breed healthy animals and achieve high 112 crop yields 25. Scott 20 uses the ancient Greek word "métis" to refer to smallholders' 113 practice-based, situated knowledge. He also emphasises that métis is commonly sufficiently 114 precise to serve its purpose, but no more than that. This is because the purpose of local, practical 115 knowledge (or métis) is to solve concrete problems at hand, rather than contribute to a 116 generalised body of abstract and precise knowledge about an issue (as in science) 20. 117

118
While the smallholders in this study had extensive experience of livestock keeping, they also 119 reported not having sufficient competence to deal with animal disease adequately, particularly 120 disease in pigs. This indicates that a combination of smallholders' and veterinary practitioners' 121 knowledge is needed to identify adequate ways of treating livestock disease see also 22, 26. 122 As mentioned above, other studies have recognised that many smallholders use a combination 123 of what they learn from veterinary practitioners and their local practical knowledge in their 124 livestock production, illustrating how knowledge systems tend to overlap in everyday practice 125 22, 24, 27, 31. Current research also indicates that agricultural policy and veterinary practice 126 often fail to account for and understand the value and purpose of practical knowledge 127 sufficiently 20, 24, 27, 28, 32. Indeed, there is a widespread tendency in agricultural 128 development to prioritise formal scientific knowledge over local practical knowledge, and 129 assume that people relying on practical knowledge are in need of "improvement" based on 130 scientific advice from outside experts 13, 20, 25, 32, 33. It has been shown that this 131 insensitivity to local knowledges and practices among policy and advisory services is an 132 important reason for suboptimal use of veterinary advice in the local context, resulting in 133 suboptimal treatment of disease 34. 134

135
In order to improve understanding of how smallholders' local practical knowledge and 136 veterinary knowledge can fruitfully be combined to find ways of dealing with ASF and other 137 animal health issues in the local context, this study began with smallholders' ways of knowing 138 and acting on animal disease. This approach of building on and strengthening smallholders' 139 existing local knowledge has both been suggested in relation to dealing with ASF in Uganda 140 35, and proven crucial for achieving effective disease control in other sub-Saharan contexts 141 36. In other words, for external advice from scientists and veterinary actors to be relevant in 142 the local context, it is first necessary to understand the aims and methods of smallholders' 143 practical knowledge. 144

145
An ethnographic approach was chosen on the basis of its potential to provide rich insights into 146 smallholders' experiences and practices in relation to animal health issues, as well as the 147 broader context in which their livestock production and ways of knowing are embedded. 148 Ethnographic fieldwork was carried out by the first author from September to December 176 2019, and smallholders in approximately 70 households were interviewed. In this paper, 177 were specific attention is paid to the responses related to livestock production, and more 178 specifically to animal health issues in pigs. Alongside the semi-structured interviews, the first 179 author observed and participated in smallholders' daily lives and farming practices. In 180 addition to interviews and participant observation, six focus group discussions with a total of 181 43 smallholders were organised. The overarching aim of these discussions was to contribute 182 greater understanding of the participants' views on the challenges related to livestock. 183

Study setting
Participants for the focus group discussions were chosen using the selection criteria of 184 previous experience of livestock production and being over the age of 18. One of the field 185 assistants guided each discussion by asking open-ended questions, and the other translated 186 from Luo into English. The first author took detailed notes and intervened when clarification 187 or follow-up questions were deemed appropriate. Since mixed groups with men and women 188 risked being dominated by the perspectives of male participants, two groups were women 189 only. All except one focus group discussion included a ranking exercise at the end of the 190 discussion. Participants were asked to rank the challenges that had been mentioned during the 191 discussion, with the purpose of capturing the perceived magnitude of each challenge. In two 192 of the groups, the participants choose to discuss challenges with pig production, while the 193 other groups decided to focus on challenges with goat and poultry production, with which 194 they had more experience. 195

196
The names of animal diseases in this paper are taken from the field assistants' English 197 translations of smallholders' responses in Luo. The first author discussed these translations 198 with the assistants to ensure a translation that was close to the smallholders' intended 199 meanings, while avoiding forcing smallholders' categorisation of diseases or problems in their 200 livestock production into specific disease names in English if that was not the smallholders' 201 initial meaning. 202

203
In the final stage of fieldwork, a survey was designed with the aim of cross-checking and 204 quantifying the qualitative findings 38. The survey focused on smallholders' perceptions of 205 problems with livestock keeping and access to veterinary services. In the survey, smallholders 206 were asked to rank the key challenges in livestock production that had previously been 207 mentioned in interviews and focus group discussions. The survey was delivered by one of the 208 field assistants, trained by the first author, who interviewed a total of 101 smallholders (16  209 from village A and 85 from village B) in Luo and wrote down responses in English. A mix of 210 purposive and convenience sampling strategies were applied when selecting informants. The 211 criteria that smallholders had to meet to be selected for the survey were that they were adults 212 with previous knowledge of livestock production who were at home at the time of the field 213 assistant's visit. The predominant number of informants from village B was due to 214 convenience because this was the field assistant's home village. 215 216 Data analysis 217 Interviews and focus group discussions were not recorded, and thus not transcribed ad 218 verbatim. Instead, the first author made detailed notes during and immediately after the 219 interviews and focus group discussions. To avoid misunderstandings (thus ensuring the 220 validity of the data) and identify potential gaps in the data, findings were frequently discussed 221 with key informants and the field assistants throughout the fieldwork 38. In this sense, the 222 data analysis already started in the field. After the fieldwork, interview transcripts were 223 imported into NVivo 12 (QSR International) and the first author continued the analysis by 224 carefully rereading all notes as a way of becoming familiar with the material 39. This close 225 reading of the material was combined with coding, initially focusing on exploring potential 226 connections and contradictions within the material. Broader themes around the studied 227 smallholders' livestock production evolved at this stage of the coding, such as "pig keeping", 228 "animal diseases" and "livestock advice". These broader themes were discussed with the co-229 authors, identifying potentially interesting aspects on which this paper could focus and 230 exploring varied interpretations of the data. In relation to this process, the research questions 231 for the paper became clearer and the relatively broad themes of the codes developed into 232 narrower topics, for example "local treatment methods", "handling of dead pigs" and 233 "syndromes that can be interpreted as ASF". Application of theoretical concepts (presented in 234 the conceptual framework) enabled identification of aspects in the empirical material that 235 might otherwise have been overlooked and made it possible to generalize through theory 40. 236 In other words, the analysis was both inductive and deductive. 237 Survey data were collected on paper questionnaires by one of the field assistants and later 238 of the study. They were also told that they could decline to take part of the study at any time 247 and for any reason. Oral informed consent was given by all smallholders prior to 248 participation. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the smallholders' names have been 249 changed and the names of the study villages have been excluded. 250

252
While cattle, goats and poultry had been part of the everyday lives of the studied smallholders 253 since childhood, pigs were introduced more recently. Several informants had their first 254 interactions with pigs in IDP camps, and decided to invest in pigs when they returned to their 255 villages. Pigs were mainly kept for their monetary value and produced for sale. They were 256 generally appreciated for producing many piglets, growing fast with small inputs, and 257 generating more income than poultry and goats. Due to the perceived high costs of building a 258 pigsty, the majority of pigs were tethered or free roaming. Only a few informants had 259 constructed pigsties. Some informants confined their pigs in disused mud huts, an 260 arrangement that did not require new investment. Confinement of pigs was generally reported 261 to reduce social tensions among community members, as free-roaming pigs often destroyed 262 crops, which was frequently a source of conflict between smallholders. Nevertheless, some 263 informants claimed that the lack of fresh air in the mud huts reduced the growth of their pigs 264 and they therefore preferred them to be free roaming. 265 266 Informants commonly reported that they felt less confident dealing with animal health issues 267 in pigs compared with the other animals they kept. A common view among the informants 268 was also that pigs were more sensitive than other livestock, and therefore more difficult to 269 keep healthy, as illustrated in the following quote by smallholder Gloria The informants' ongoing search for more efficient methods to deal with pig health issues can 286 be interpreted here as stemming from a genuine concern for their animals' wellbeing. In this 287 context, being able to ensure their animals' health was closely tied to the informants' sense of 288 "craftmanship" in farming see also 25. More efficient ways of tackling animal health issues 289 were also directly connected to the possibility of earning an income from pigs. Some explanations among the informants concerning the spread of disease and causes of 309 death indicated the broader framing of problems in relation to animal health, with disease not 310 clearly separated from issues related to witchcraft or poisoning. The risk of having your pig 311 poisoned by a community member was considered a real threat in the study area, and many 312 informants found it difficult to distinguish between a poisoned pig and a pig suffering from an 313 infectious disease. Mention of witchcraft and curses among informants indicated the spiritual 314 dimension of conceptualising disease, which has also been described in other contexts see, 315 for example, 24 p.55. 316 317 While informants commonly reported that they had observed some clinical signs before their 318 pigs died, they reported high levels of uncertainty regarding the causes of disease, which 319 affected opportunities to prevent the spread of infections. The following response from 320 smallholder Christine (individual interview) sheds light on this issue: 321 322 "When the pigs got sick, I recognised that they were not behaving normally, something was 323 wrong in their heads. What I mean is that they started to run around, then they were just 324 dead, all dead on the ground. I'm not sure why they were running around. But it was like they 325 were not stable on their legs, I could see they weren't walking properly anymore. When they 326 died, we couldn't eat the meat since we didn't know what was wrong when the pigs died, so 327 we threw the dead pigs into the bush." 328 329 One reason for the perceived difficulty in interpreting disease in pigs was that practical know-330 how in livestock production, often passed down from parents and relatives, was mainly 331 developed based on experiences with animal health issues in goats, poultry and cattle. This 332 practical knowledge was sometimes found to be irrelevant or even harmful when applied to 333 pigs, indicating the extent of how context-specific this local knowledge is and thus the 334 difficulty of transferring it from one animal species to another see also 20, 25, 26. The 335 section below examines some of the most common pig diseases and how they were dealt with 336 by the informants. 337 338 Common pig diseases and treatments 339 In both focus group discussions and individual interviews, several informants said that pig 340 diseases (including disease outbreaks) were more common between December and March. 341 This correlated with the dry season, when many of them struggled to provide enough feed and 342 water for their pigs, and therefore had to let them out to scavenge even if they had an 343 enclosure. Other informants suggested that time of year did not have a major impact on the 344 total occurrence of diseases, as the rainy season was perceived to increase the risk of ticks, 345 lice and coughs, for example. 346 347 While all diseases were a potential threat to the success of pig production, some diseases were 348 discussed as not necessarily resulting in rapid deaths, and were therefore perceived as less of a 349 risk. Commonly mentioned pig health problems (many of them being clinical signs that were 350 referred to by smallholders as separate diseases) that were possible to treat or did not result in 351 rapid deaths included coughs, diarrhoea and jiggers (Table 1)  Avoid keeping pigs in wet and/or muddy places.
 Wash pigs with water.
 Spray with pesticides.    Described as difficult to prevent and treat.
was described as potentially helpful, but it was also reported that the health only appeared to improve temporarily.
 Many informants described how it was difficult to construct housing due to financial constraints.

Running around
Changed behaviour, running around in circles, unstable legs, loss of energy, rapid death.
Described as difficult to prevent and treat.
Informants had experience of the effectiveness of purchased medication to treat some clinical 433 signs, such as diarrhoea, and sometimes they pooled resources to fund one person's travel 434 costs to purchase pharmaceuticals in town. The informants' use or aspiration to use 435 pharmaceuticals is an example of the fluid relation between different technologies and 436 knowledge systems in this study context 22. Opinions varied as to whether pharmaceuticals 437 would be efficient for treating the syndromes that were interpreted by the authors to be ASF 438 ( The findings from the interviews and focus group discussions show that many informants had 448 experience of "orere" in poultry, possibly caused by Newcastle disease (ND). Vaccination 449 was commonly suggested as the preferable prevention and treatment method in this instance. 450 Due to financial constraints and limited access to vaccines and veterinary services, few were 451 able to vaccinate against ND. This might partly explain why some of the informants believed 452 that "orere" in pigs could also be prevented with vaccinations. 453 454 Results also show that some of the informants who believed that all kinds of syndromes in 455 pigs could be treated and cured with pharmaceuticals identified time as one of the most 456 critical factors in successful treatment, as expressed by smallholder David (FGD): 457 458 "There is a disease that we call orere. If that disease comes, you will find that the pigs are 459 running around the compound. They can also become weak and usually they die, all of them 460 at once. But you can consult a vet, and then the disease can get cured if you just get some help 461 from veterinarians. But this one, with the orere, if it stays for too long in the pigs, it can be 462 hard to cure. So you have to get a vet to cure it very fast for the injection to help. In this 463 sense, there is no disease that can't get cured; everything can be solved with drugs." 464 465 Some informants described how they had consulted an animal health service provider as a last 466 resort when they were unable to deal with ASF (as well as other pig diseases) themselves. The 467 person had then injected or dewormed the pigs, informing them that this would make the 468 disease disappear. In this sense, responding to ASF also included elements of discerning 469 between different, and sometimes conflicting, information, a situation that could lead to 470 confusion about what knowledge to trust or not see also 14. In the following quote, 471 A few informants reported a reluctance to approach veterinary actors in relation to ASF. For 507 example, one informant had heard on the radio that ASF outbreaks should be reported to the 508 District Veterinary Officer (the person ultimately responsible for animal health in the district), 509 but was fearful that such reporting would lead to a request for all animals to be culled or to 510 the implementation of other biosecurity measures requiring financial investment. This reflects 511 the importance of acknowledging local conditions that affect smallholders' ways of knowing 512 and responding to pig diseases such as ASF when considering how veterinary knowledge and 513 preventive measures to avoid ASF infection might have relevance in the local context see 514 also 36. 515 516 Discussion 517 As mentioned earlier in this paper, several scholars have confirmed in empirical studies that 518 smallholders' practical knowledge can play a key role in solving problems in the local context 519 with regards to animal disease see, for example, 19. It has also been acknowledged that 520 smallholders rather than scientists often are the main producers of locally relevant novelties in 521 agriculture, illustrating the value and importance of this context-specific, dynamic and 522 experimental local knowledge 20, 25, 26. These aspects are important to underline, not least 523 in light of past and current tendencies to ignore and suppress the skills and knowledge of 524 smallholders in the face of hegemonic Western science and colonialism 19, 44. What the 525 results from the present study show, however, is that the smallholders' practical knowledge 526 was not enough to solve pig health issues adequately, which points to the need to combine 527 métis and scientific knowledge in this context. 528

529
The limitations of practical knowledge in controlling pig diseases 530 The results show that compared with other livestock in the study area, pigs were generally 531 perceived to be more sensitive and harder to keep healthy. In dealing with pig health issues, 532 the informants mainly relied on the resources and knowledge accessible to them in their local 533 communities. In relation to this, they often reported that they lacked the means to diagnose 534 and treat sick pigs, something that has also been described in other studies on Ugandan 535 smallholder pig production see, for example, 14. The smallholders' strong dependence on 536 local knowledge in pig production can partly be understood as a consequence of the limited 537 access and sometimes poor quality of veterinary services available in the study area. Their 538 request for other kinds of knowledge in dealing with pig health issues indicates the limitation 539 of practical knowledge as a means of controlling ASF and other pig diseases see also 16, 22. 540 The practical know-how and treatment methods used in pig production had mainly been 541 developed in relation to poultry, goats and cattle, and were commonly perceived as less 542 efficient in pigs. Thus, the relatively short history of pig production in the study setting can be 543 assumed to play a key role in this perceived difficulty. This resonates well with how practical 544 knowledge has been described and theorised in the literature, where it is assumed to develop 545 over time through the constant adaptation, experimentation and fine-tuning of methods 20, 546 25, 26. 547 548 Local perceptions and responses to pig health issues 549 The informants reported that all pig health issues presented potential risks to their pig 550 production. ASF and descriptions of syndromes and diseases that the authors interpreted as 551 ASF were commonly described as being particularly difficult and stressful to handle, not least 552 because it could cause the rapid death of all pigs. It is important to emphasise, both with 553 regards to ASF as well as other pig health issues mentioned in this paper, that the disease 554 terms used by the informants generally related to syndromes and not to specific diagnoses 555 see also 19, 22, 23. 556

557
Many informants expressed uncertainties about how ASF is transmitted, which may partly 558 explain why they found it so difficult to prevent and control this disease. The complexity of 559 local pig health should also be stressed here. This is related to previous reports about pigs and 560 other livestock in Uganda often suffering from undernourishment as well as several 561 subclinical infections at once 15, 45. Assuming that this could also be the case in the context 562 studied here, this may be a potential explanation for why several informants found it hard to 563 distinguish ASF from other pig diseases. This study also identified uncertainties and different 564 views among the informants regarding whether ASF was curable or not. Some of the 565 informants, believing it possible to cure ASF, described the main hindrance to be a lack of 566 access to pharmaceuticals and efficient treatment methods. This sheds light on the 567 smallholders' search for more accurate solutions in dealing with pig health issues, as well as 568 their openness to combining their practical knowledge with aspects of scientific knowledge 569 that have also been revealed in other studies on smallholder livestock production in sub-570 Saharan Africa see, for example, 22, 23. Some informants who had been in contact with an 571 animal health service provider reported how this openness could entail risks, such as receiving 572 incorrect advice or erroneous information in relation to ASF. This has also been reported in 573 other studies on Ugandan smallholder pig production 14, 46, 47. In this sense, the 574 smallholders were not only at risk of losing money based on poor advice from animal health 575 service providers, but incorrect information could potentially also exacerbate a general sense 576 of uncertainty about how to act when pigs are infected by incurable diseases such as ASF. 577

578
The results from this study show that very few smallholders implemented preventive 579 measures to hinder the spread of AFS. Preventive measures commonly recommended to 580 farmers include constructing pigsties, buying an extra pair of boots to be used when entering 581 the pigsty, and using commercially produced disinfectants to prevent the spread of ASF see, 582 for example, 48, 49. With limited financial resources, however, the majority of informants 583 considered preventive measures, such as the construction of pigsties, to be too costly. It was 584 also a common practice among them to sell sick pigs as a strategy to reduce or avoid financial 585 losses in the event of pig diseases. In such cases, the informants generally perceived it to more 586 critical for their pigs to be healthy enough to sell rather than to resolve the actual sickness. In 587 this sense, responses to pig health issues including ASF should not only be understood in the 588 light of what knowledge the informants have, but can also be seen as a pragmatic response to 589 having to meet numerous household needs and thus trying to make the best of a difficult 590 situation. At the same time, the fact that some informants reached out to animal health service 591 providers in an attempt to complement their practical know-how in pig production reveals 592 how animal health was still very central to their pig production. The findings from this study 593 further show that the informants generally made minimal investments in their pig production. 594 Against this backdrop, the authors agree that there is a need to move beyond "universal" 595 preventive approaches in relation to ASF 8, and encourage explorations of options and 596 solutions better suited to poverty-constrained smallholder contexts see also 50. This is 597 believed to have more relevance in the study setting, where the informants generally 598 perceived commercial products and the construction of pigsties to be too expensive. 599 600 Barriers to combining knowledge systems 601 When attempting to combine knowledge systems in order to deal with animal health issues 602 more efficiently, key factors for consideration have been discussed in several empirical 603 studies on smallholder livestock production in the Global South see, for example, 19, 22, 24. 604 One such aspect concerns different perspectives on health and disease between veterinary 605 practitioners and smallholders. For example, a study from Kenya shows how the Western 606 science used by veterinarians is based on a view of health as the normal state, in contrast to 607 disease being something abnormal 19. In that study, veterinarians assumed medical 608 treatments to be required to return the livestock body to normality, whereas pastoralists did 609 not differentiate conceptually or spatially between disease and health, but perceived diseases 610 to be a natural part of the environment 19. Thus, pastoralists considered treatment as 611 potentially required to reduce the unnecessary loss of cattle, but did not perceive it as an 612 imperative in order to eradicate or avoid diseases 19. Similar observations were made in a 613 study from western Uganda where cattle-keeping farmers perceived minor health issues and 614 poor growth as something normal, rather than something worth controlling, despite the 615 negative effects this had on their income and food security 15. Another study on Ugandan 616 pig farming showed that smallholders were more concerned with the growth of their pigs and 617 their pigs appearing to be in good health so that they could sell them, rather than preventing 618 the spread of ASF, despite this being a top priority for veterinarians 8. Another interesting 619 finding from that study was how smallholders generally preferred their pigs to be free 620 roaming, partly due to their perception of pigs as part of the household and therefore not 621 separable from humans through confinement 8. These examples illustrate how priorities, 622 methods and epistemologies may differ between animal health service providers and 623 smallholders when it comes to animal health and disease see also 51. With this in mind, 624 improved understanding of smallholders' ways of knowing and conceptualising diseases will 625 be critical for improving communication between smallholders and veterinarians, and 626 ensuring appropriate animal health service delivery 22, 23. 627 628

629
Since ASF cannot be treated or cured, the only available option to reduce the negative impact 630 of this disease is prevention and control. The findings from this study reveal that the 631 opportunities and motivations among smallholders for implementing preventive measures in 632 pig production were generally low. Overall, the informants acted once they recognised visible 633 signs of sickness in their pigs, indicating how the concept of prevention was not obvious in 634 this study context. As mentioned above, the responses among informants to realising that 635 something might be wrong with their pigs were not always concentrated on preventing the 636 further spread of diseases. Thus, if the local conditions for pig production and smallholders' 637 ways of understanding are not given greater acknowledgement, there are reasons to believe 638 that the strategies for prevention and control, as suggested by researchers and veterinary 639 services, will be difficult to implement in smallholder contexts. In relation to this, it may be 640 relevant to explore opportunities to recommend preventive and controlling measures in 641 relation to ASF that could be motivated by factors other than disease 52, 53. These include 642 how the confinement of pigs in the study context can potentially be perceived as more 643 relevantfor reducing social tensions in the community due to crops being destroyed by free-644 roaming pigsthan preventing and controlling pig diseases, which is often the main focus of 645 veterinarians. In so doing, there is potential to improve the communication between 646 smallholders and animal health providers by acknowledging smallholders' needs and wants in 647 their pig production. At the same time this could also help reduce the negative impacts of 648 ASF and other pig health issues. 649 650 Achieving more efficient control of ASF in Uganda is not only important for reducing the 651 negative socio-economic impacts of this disease 43 but, from what has been seen in this 652 study, can also be important for increasing smallholders' motivations to continue keeping 653 pigs. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the informants perceived pig production as having 654 the potential to provide an income and thus enhance their opportunities in life, which was 655 generally the main motivation for starting pig production in the first place. At the same time, 656 ASF and other pig health issues have forced some of them to abandon pig production 657 altogether, as they saw no possibility of dealing with these issues if they reappeared in new 658 pigs. In order to boost the potential of small-scale pig production as a poverty mitigation 659 strategy in Uganda, it is suggested that the structural factors influencing local conditions for 660 pig production should be addressed, such as increasing smallholders' access to adequate 661 animal health services. Indeed, the informants requested complementary knowledge about 662 how to deal with major and minor pig health issues. Nevertheless, for veterinary advice and 663 knowledge to have relevance in this and similar contexts, veterinary actors and researchers 664 need to pay careful attention to smallholders' problem framings and ways of knowing in 665 livestock production. 666 667